The Shelby County Farmers' Market Case

University of Tennessee, Knoxville TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange

Bulletins AgResearch

4-1977

Direct Marketing of Produce: The Shelby County Farmers' Market Case

University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station

John R. Brooker

Earl G. Taylor

Follow this and additional works at: https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agbulletin

Part of the Agriculture Commons

Recommended Citation University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station; Brooker, John R.; and Taylor, Earl G., "Direct Marketing of Produce: The Shelby County Farmers' Market Case" (1977). Bulletins. https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_agbulletin/354

The publications in this collection represent the historical publishing record of the UT Agricultural Experiment Station and do not necessarily reflect current scientific knowledge or ecommendations.r Current information about UT Ag Research can be found at the UT Ag Research website. This Bulletin is brought to you for free and open access by the AgResearch at TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. It has been accepted for inclusion in Bulletins by an authorized administrator of TRACE: Tennessee Research and Creative Exchange. For more information, please contact [email protected]. Bulletin 569 s."" April 1977 UN~\I.c-f renn.." '-- - DIRECT MARKETI,NG OF PRODUCE The Shelby County Farmers' Market Case

A~•. VET-MEn LIBRARY John R. Brooker Eip.'1G. Taylor NOV t 41977 ." . Uni

The University of Tennessee Agricultural Experiment Station D.M. Gossett, Dean Knoxville TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION 3 BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY 5 Memphis Trade Area 5 History of Food Marketing in Memphis 7 Shelby County Farmers' Market 8

DATA COLLECTED FROM GROWERS 9 Fruits and Vegetables Sold 9 Selling Patterns . ~ IO Produce Sales and Income 13 Dependence of Growers on Farmers' Market 15 Part-Time Versus Full-Time Farmers 19

DATA COLLECTED FROM CUSTOMERS AND OTHER SHOPPERS 22 Socioeconomic Facts 22 Purchasing Patterns 24 Average Total Cost of Produce Purchased ~ 28 Average Distance Between Residnece and Market 31 Frequency of Shopping at SCFM 32

CONCLUDING REMARKS .37

REFERENCES 38

2 Direct Marketing of Produce: The Shelby County Farmers' Market Case

by John R. Brooker and Earl G. Taylor*

SINCE the end of World War II, large food firms have been integrating into the food marketing system in the U.S. on a steadily increasing scale. [2] This integration has facilitated important gains in operational efficiency, as a partial result of the larger volumes handled by fewer participants. Also, the integration has been well received by consumers because it has made available to consumers an abundant supply of good quality food, and, for many years, at relatively low prices. However, beginning in the late 1960's and continuing into the 70's, prices have been rising. From 1970 to 1975, the cost of marketing food in the United States increased from $71.1 to $103.7 billion, an increase of 46 percent. [10] However, the relative magnitude of the marketing margin (the percentage of the consumer's food dollar that goes toward the cost of marketing activities) has remained fairly stable. In 1970, the marketing margin accounted for 67 percent of the consumer's food dollar, whereas in 1975 it accounted for 65 percent, actually a reduction of 2 percentage points. In most economic studies concerned with the demand for· food, commodity price and consumer income are assumed to fluc- tuate, whereas consumer tastes, preferences, and habits are assumed to remain unchanged. [3] However, several major changes appear to be occurring in the consumers' food-buying behavior. "These changes are: (1) Increased purchases of basic foods, usually involving more home preparation, (2) a willingness to participate in multifamily food-purchasing groups . . . , (3) increased home cultivation, (4) more home preservation of

"'Brooker is an Associate Professor, Department of Agricultural Eco- nomics and Rural Sociology at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville, and Taylor is a Marketing Specialist, Food Distribution Research Labora- tory, AMRI, ARS, USDA, Beltsville, Maryland.

3 foods ... , and (5) greater patronage of farmers' markets, roadside markets, and pick-your-own offerings". [9] These five ap- parent changes emphasize the concern of consumers regarding nutritional intake and food costs. [16] This concern has important implications for the commercial food marketing system and for small farmers close to population centers. Farmers and consumers are increasing their participation in the marketing of food. Consumer groups organized as multifamily purchasing groups (usually referred to as food-buying clubs or cooperatives) are growing rapidly. Also, individual consumer participation at roadside markets, at pick-your-own operations, and at traditional farmers' markets has increased in recent years in many regions of the Nation. Numerous reports containing dis- cussions of the growth of these outlets have been published by trade papers such as the "Progressive Grocer" and "The Packer," by private associations such as the Georgia Farm Bureau; and by public agencies such as the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture, the New Jersey Department of Agriculture, and the Cooperative League of the U.S. [18, 9, 16] Interest in increased farmer-consumer participation in the marketing of food has also been expressed by the U.S. Congress. A bill entitled "Farmer-to-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976" was passed during the second session of the 94th Congress. The purpose of the Act is ... "to promote, through appropriate means and on an economically sustainable basis, the development and expansion of direct marketing of agricultural commodities from farmers to consumers". [5, p. 1] The term "direct marketing" has been used in many articles and publications for any situation in which part or all of the marketing functions are performed by consumers or consumer groups. Thus, direct marketing may refer to a situation in which consumers perform the retailing functions by purchasing directly from wholesalers. On the other hand, it may refer to a situation in which consumers or farmers, or both, perform the wholesaling and retailing functions when they purchase in quantity directly from a producer for resale. In this report, use of the term "direct marketing" will be limited to its purest form, in which farm foods are sold directly by the producer to the consumer without the assistance of packers, shippers, proce.ssors, wholesalers, or retailers.

4 The direct marketing of farm foods by producers to consumers is primarily limited to foods that do not require extensive processing, because health regulations and processing requirements for dairy products, poultry, meats, bakery products, and numerous canned or frozen fruits and vegetables make their direct transfer from producers to consumers difficult. The objectives of this study were: 1) To examine the direct marketing of produce (fresh fruits and vegetables) in the study area through a farmer's marketl outlet and 2) to evaluate the potential for growth of direct marketing of produce in the study area and in other areas.

BACKGROUND OF THE STUDY The existing farmers' market in Memphis, Tennessee, the Shelby County Farmers' Market, was the source of data for the study reported herein. In this section of the report the Memphis trade area and the Shelby County population are briefly presented, the history of food marketing in Memphis is reviewed, and the operating characteristics of the farmers' market in Shelby County are described. Memphis Trade Area In 1973, the Bureau of the Census defined the Memphis Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area (SMSA) as consisting of Tipton County and Shelby County (including the City of Memphis) in Tennessee, Crittenden County in Arkansas, and Desoto County in Mississippi. This SMSA is the largest one in the area bounded by Dallas on the west, New Orleans on the south, Atlanta on the west, and St. Louis on the north. Trade and commerce generated from the Memphis SMSA dominates smaller regional areas such as Nashville, Tennessee; Jackson, Mississippi; and Little Rock, Arkansas. [1] The Mississippi-Arkansas-Tennessee Council of Governments projected Shelby County's population to increase from 750,314 in 1973 to 842,000 in 1980 and to 974,000 in 1990. [1] Memphis, the largest urban area in Tennessee, is strategically located at the center of the Midsouth region.2 The Memphis "trade area" covers 70 counties (Figure 1), and nearly all counties outside

lA farmers' market is a specific geographic location where space and facilities are available for farmers' use in parking vehicles and in displaying produce and selling it directly to consumers. 2The area designated as the Midsouth covers 105 counties in six states-Alabama, Arkansas, Kentucky, Mississippi, Missouri, and Ten- nessee. 5 Figure t. Memphis Trade Area, showing portion of the area within a tOO-mileradius of Memphis.

6 the Memphis SMSA are rural and agricultural. [17] According to the 1969 Census of Agriculture, there were 82,943 farms in the 70 counties, and 63 percent had total sales of agricultural products of less than $5,000. Those farms are the potential suppliers of produce for direct-to-consumer marketing activity in the SCFM. In 1969, 9,403 farms in the 70 counties were growing fruits and vegetables on 67,149 acres. [11, 12, 13, 14, 15] About three-fourths of them are within a 100-mile radius of Memphis (Figure 1).

History of Food Marketing in Memphis Memphis has shown an interest in food marketing facilities for more than 150 years. [7] About 1820, the first market was established at Auction Square. It was operated by private busi- nessmen for about 25 years. During the 1840's, th~ city constructed two facilities closer to the centers of population-the North Market at Poplar Street and Law Street (Danny Thomas Boulevard) and the South Market at Beale and Third Streets. The two facilities consisted of large sheds 300 feet long that housed meat stalls on one side and fruits and vegetables on the other. The standard rental was 25 cents for a wagon space. The markets closed at 10:30 a.m., but jobbers were permitted to peddle unsold produce through city streets. For about 30 years, fruits, vegetables, and meats were sold only in North and South Markets. In fact, it was against the law for other retail stores in the city to sell these perishable foods. Then, in 1872 controls were relaxed so that grocery firms could sell fruits and vegetables. Later those firms added meats and became full-line grocery stores. In 1896 the city once again entered the food business by constructing a large, three-story brick building on the South Market site to provide a public retail market. Farmers brought produce to the rear of the facility for purchase by the grocers and, thus, a wholesale market developed. By 1900 the location was no longer practical as a retail market, and the facility became predominantly a wholesale market. In 1929, due to wholesalers' dissatisfaction with the facility on the South Market site, because of congestion, expanding demand, and inadequacy of the facility, the city relocated the market again. Sheds were constructed on the river slope at Front and Poplar Streets. This time, a cold storage plant was included.

7 In 1934 many wholesalers were discontent with the city administration of the market. As a result, a group of farmers formed the Shelby County Growers Association (SCGA) and developed facilities on 4 acres at Washington and High Streets in downtown Memphis. The new market, known as the Shelby County Farmers' Market (SCFM), remained in that location until the early 1950's, when the site became overcrowded. Then the SCGA relocated the SCFM from downtown Memphis to a 22-acre site in the northwest section of the city that is bounded by Scott Street, Cyprus Creek, and South Pershing Street extended. That location is 2:lh miles northeast of the population center of Shelby County, and 3:lh miles northeast of the population center of Memphis. The facilities occupy 14 acres of the 22-acre site.

Shelby County Farmers' Market The SCFM market sales section contains two street-level, roofed farmers' sheds, each with 100 stalls that are separated by painted lines on the floor. In addition, five single-story.buildings provide facilities for wholesalers, a restaurant, a market office, public restrooms, and a gatehouse to control ingress and provide security for the fenced site. At the gatehouse, entrance fees are collected from both buyers and sellers who enter the market during the local growing season. Refrigerated storage space is maintained by wholesale firms and by jobbers who rent space in the farmers' sheds. The refrigerated storage space consists of a prefabricated cooler and a refrigerated trailer, both provided by the tenants at their expense. The only materials-handling equipment in the market is that used by individual wholesale firms primarily for street level unloading operations. General sanitation, trash pickup, and security are the responsibility of the market management. Water, overhead light- ing, electric outlets, and general sanitation are provided to the farmers' sheds. Water is supplied to wholesale facility tenants; however, all electrical requirements, refrigeration, and interior sanitation are their individual responsibilities. The farmers' market is open year-round; however, most of the direct farmer-to-consumer sales activity occurs from the middle of June through September. This period coincides with the produce harvesting season in the Midsouth.

8 Gate receipt records during the l4-week harvesting season in 1975 revealed that slightly more than 78,000 retail customers' vehicles entered the farmers' market site during that time. In addition to the retail traffic, 17,450 wholesale buyers' vehicles entered the market. The produce buyers, both retail and wholesale, were supplied fresh fruits and vegetables in about 12,520 trucks, as follows: Pickup trucks, 10,700; I-ton trucks, 640; 11;2- ton trucks, 250; 10-wheel trucks, 900; and 18-wheel trucks, 30. The value of the SCFM as a direct-to-consumer outlet depends upon mutual benefit to both consumers and farmers. Farmers must be able to sell an adequate quantity at a satisfactory price and consumers must be satisfied with quantity, quality, and cost. In the next two sections of this report, we present data collected from growers and customers in the SCFM to provide insight into the value of direct marketing for both groups of participants.

DATA COLLECTED FROM GROWERS During the summer of 1975, 150 growers in the SCFM were interviewed3 and data were obtained on their direct marketing of produce. The data gathered covered fruits and vegetables sold, selling patterns, produce sales and income, dependence of growers on the SCFM as a produce outlet, and part-time versus full-time farmers. The interviews were conducted between 1:00 and 9:00 p.m. during a I-week period in each of the months June, July, and August. The 150 growers interviewed were all of the growers in the market when the survey was conducted.

Fruits and Vegetables Sold All growers surveyed were selling at least one produce item that they had produced; Le.: they were growers, not jobber- retailers.4 Eighteen types of produce items were sold by these growers (Table 1). Forty-three percent of the growers in the SCFM sold tomatoes, the most popular produce item sold, and 33

3Most of the field work was conducted by James Morris, a summer employee of the Department of Agricultural Economics and Rural So- ciology. 4Jobber-retailers assemble small quantities of produce from local growers and wholesalers and resell the produce at either wholesale or retail. They perform an important function in the SCFM, but were ex- cluded from the survey. -

9 Table 1. Products sold by 150 growers, Shelby County Farmers' Market, Memphis, Tennessee, June-August, 1975

Number of Percentage of Item growers grow.ra Apples 5 3.3 Butterbeans 14 9.3 Cabbage 2 1.3 Cantaloupes 25 16.7 Cucumbers 10 6.7 Eggplant 4 2.7 Grapes 2 1.3 Okra 15 10.0 Peaches 12 8.0 Peas, southern 49 32.7 Peppers, all types 18 12.0 Plums 1 0.7 Potatoes 5 3.3 Snap beans 22 14.7 Squash, yellow 17 11.3 Sweet corn 28 18.7 Tomatoes 65 43.3 Watermelons 15 10.0 percent sold southern peas, the second most popular produce item sold. The next three most popular produce items sold were sweet corn, cantaloupes, and snapbeans, sold by 19, 17, and 15 percent of the growers, respectively.

Selling Patterns During the harvesting period for a particular crop, 55 percent of the growers made daily trips to the market and 35 percent made weekly trips (Table 2). The remaining 10 percent made selling trips to the market on an infrequent, irregular basis. About 3 percent of the growers were in the market for more than 2 -days during a given selling trip. Most of the growers specialized by selling only one or two products in the market. Of the 150 growers interviewed, eight (5 percent) sold five or more products. A vital area of concern in the marketing of any product is the determination of price. Less than a third of the growers said they try to appraise the current supply and demand conditions and set prices accordingly. More than half of the growers said they merely ask other growers in the market the "going" price on that particular day. 10 Another area of concern to growers and to the management of a farmers' market is disposal outlets for excess produce. The disposition of excess or unsold produce when a grower decides he must leave the ·market can seriously affect a market's price stability. The survey revealed that 79 percent of the growers in the SCFM either destroy excess produce, feed it to livestock, sell it elsewhere, or give it away elsewhere. The other 21 percent reported that they "stay until it's sold" or sell it to a jobber- retailer. These growers then may continue to lower prices until

Table 2. Selling patterns of 150 growers in Shelby County Farmers' Market, Mempllis, Tennessee, June-August, 1975

Number of Percentage of Item growers growers' Month interviewed: June 56 37.3 July 79 52.7 August 15 10.0 Totals 150 100.0 Frequency of selling trips to market: Daily 73 54.5 Weekly 47 35.1 Other 14 10.4 No response 16 Totals 150 100.0 Selling time in market per trip: 12 hours or less 107 75.9 13-24 hours 20 14.2 25-48 hours 10 7.1 49 or more hours 4 2.8 No response 9 Totals 150 100.0 Number of products sold per grower: One product only 73 48.7 Two products 36 24.0 Three products- 18 12.0 Four products 15 10.0 Five or more products 8 5.3 Totals 150 100.0 Method used for determining price: Ask other growers the "going" price 85 59.9 Supply and demand conditions 40 28.2 Percent markup 12 8.5 Buyers set price 5 3.5 No response 8 Totals 150 100.1b 11 Table 2 (continued)

Number of Percentage of Item growers growers'

Outlets for excess produce:e Destroy it 60 40.5 Feed it to livestock at farm 29 19.6 Sell it to jobber-retailer 26 17.6 Sell it elsewhere 23 15.5 Give it away elsewhere 5 3.4 Stay until· it is sold 5 3.4 No response 2 Totals 150 100.0 Sold produce through other Memphis outlets: Yes 23 15.3 No 127 84.7 Totals 150 100.0 Types of other Memphis produce outlets used: Retail grocers 14 66.7 Retail customers 3 14.3 Wholesaler 3 14.3 Truck jobber 1 4.8 None (including two "no responses") 129 Totals 150 100.1b Sold produce for other growers: Yes 13 8.7 No 137 91.3 Totals 150 100.0 Selling location in market: Front shed 84 56.0 Rear shed 66 44.0 Totals 150 100.0 Sales in open ever required:4 Yes 12 8.0 No 138 92.0 Totals 150 100.0

'Percentages are based on the number of growers that responded to a particular question. bDoes not equal 100 due to rounding of decimal values. eExcess produce is produce unsold when the grower would like to leave the SCFM. 4Selling from a location unprotected by a roof.

12 they sell out under the pressure of time and, possibly, jobber- retailers. Such a clearing action would have the potential of undermining prices of the products for the growers remaining in the market and for the new growers arriving the next day. Another potential effect of such a clearing action would be the possibility that the purchasing jobber-retailers will offer the produce for sale in the market the next day, after its :freshness has deteriorated, and customers may think they are purchasing "farm fresh" produce. Most of the growers did not sell produce through any Mem- phis outlet other than the SCFM. The growers who reported selling produce through another outlet sold primarily to retail grocers. Produce Sales and Income Produce sales in the SCFM during the 1974 summer season totaled less than $5,000 for 86 percent of the growers. Nearly 10 percent sold from $5,000 to $10,000 worth of produce; and 4 percent had sales of $10,000 or more (Table 3). Total produce sales per grower ranged from $44 to more than $20,000. Obviously, the growers who had large sales in the SCFM were able to sell considerable quantities to local wholesalers who patronize the market. Such sales are a desirable consequence of operating a traditional farmers' market adjacent to or in conjunction with produce wholesalers. When the growers were asked about their expectations regarding produce sales in the SCFM during the summer of the survey as compared with their sales of the previous year, 44 percent responded that they expected to sell a larger volume, 37 percent expected to sell about the same volume, and 19 percent expected to sell a smaller volume.

Table 3. Total produce sales in SCFM in 1974, percentage of total produce income from SCFM sales, and descriptive factors of 150 growers, Shelby County Farmers' Market, Memphis, Tennessee, June-August, 1975

Number of Percentage of Item growers growersa Total produce sales in SCFM during 1974 season: Less than $5,000 87 86.1 $ 5,000-$ 9,999 10 9.9

13 Number of Percentage of Item groVfer. groVf'''" $10,000-$14,999 1 1.0 $15,000-$19,999 1 1.0 $20,000 or more 2 2.0 No response 49 Totals 150 100.0 Sales expectation for 1975: Greater than last year 66 44.0 Same as last year 56 37~ Less than last year 28 18.7 Totals 150 100.0 Percentage of total produce income obtained from SCFM sales: Less than 25% 23 15.6 25- 49% 10 6.8 50- 74% 19 12.9 75- 89% 14 9.5 90-100% 81 55.1 No response 3 Totals 150 99.9b Percentage of total income from farming: Less than 30% 13 9.5 .30- 59% 14 10.2 60- 89% 7 5.1 90-100% 103 75.2 No response 13 Totals 150 100.0 Number of years selling in SCFM: First year 20 13.3 2- 5 years 46 30.7 6-10 years 31 20.7 11-20 years 23 15.3 21-30 years 30 20.0 Totals 150 100.0 Distance from farm to market: 50 miles or less 45 31.5 51- 75 miles 72 50.3 76-100 miles 21 14.7 101 or more miles 5 3.5 No response 7 Totals 150 100.0 "Percentages are based on the number of growers that responded to a particular question. bDoes not equal 100 due to rounding of decimal values.

14 -----'-t;- -- • ~<

An important consideration in the evaluation of a market outlet is the proportion of the grower's total produce production that is marketed through the outlet. Notably, 55 percent of the growers interviewed obtained 90-100 percent of their total produce income through sales in the SCFM, and 22 percent obtained less than 50 percent of their total produce income there. Most of the growers depended on farming for 90-100 percent of their total annual income, whereas only a small percentage received less than 30 percent of their total annual income from farming. Dependence of Growers on Farmers' Market The growers were separated into two groups, based on their share of total produce income generated from sales in the SCFM. The first group, comprising 45 percent of the growers, received less than 90 percent of their total produce income from sales in the market (Table 4). The second group, comprising 55 percent of the growers, was considered to be highly dependent on the SCFM because they received 90-100 percent of their total produce income from sales in the market. The average value of produce sales in the SCFM per grower in 1974 was slightly higher for the "less-than-90 percent" group than for the "90-100 percent" group, $3,070 and $2,915, respectively. In the "90-100 percent" group, 91 percent received less than $5,000 in produce sales in the market, whereas, in the "less- than-90 percent" group, 79 percent received less than $5,000. In both groups two growers reported produce sales in the SCFM of $10,000 or more.

Table 4. Relationship of growers' dependence on Shelby County Farmers' Market to produce sales, total income, and descriptive factors, Memphis, Tennessee, June-August, 1975

Percentage of total produc, Income from sales in this market Item Less than 90 percent 90-100 percent Number of growers' 66 81 Percentage of growersb 44.9 55.1 Average value of produce sales in SCFM, 1974 season $3,069.93 $2,914.90 Number Percentb Number Percentb Total produce sales in SCFM during 1974 season: Less than $5,000 34 79.1 52 91.2

15 $ 5,000-$ 9,999 7 16.3 3 5.3 $10.000-$14,999 0 0.0 1 1.8 $15,000-$19,999 1 2.3 0 0.0 $20.000 or more 1 2.3 1 1.8 Sales expectation for 1975: Greater than last year 28 42.4 36 44.4 Same as last year 26 39.4 29 35.8 Less than last year 12 18.2 16 19.8 Percentage of total Income from farming: Less than 30% 8 13.3 5 6.7 30- 59% 4 6.7 10 13.3 60- 89% 3 5.0 4 5.3 90-100% 45 75.0 56 74.7 Number of years selling in SCFM: First year 9 13.6 9 11.1 2- 5 years 23 34.8 23 28.4 6-10 years 10 15.2 21 25.9 11-20 years 9 13.6 13 16.0 21-30 years 15 22.7 15 18.5 Distance from farm to market (chi sq. = 6.95):< 50 miles or less 20 31.3 24 31.2 51- 75 miles 29 45.3 43 55.8 76-100 miles 10 15.6 10 13.0 101 or more miles 5 7.8 0 0.0 Location of grower's farm: Tennessee 44 66.6 44 55.7 Arkansas 12 18.2 18 22.8 Mississippi 6 9.1 11 13.9 Missouri 4· 6.1 6 7.6 "Three growers did not respond to the question as to the percentage of their produce income derived from sales in the SCFM. 'Percentages are based on the number of growers responding to a particular question.

Sales expectations for the two groups were nearly identical. Both groups had more than twice as many growers who expected their sales in 1975 to be greater than in 1974 than expected their sales to be less than in 1974. Dependence upon farming for total income was about equal for the two groups of growers. In both groups. 75 percent of the growers depended almost totally on farming for family income.

16 Notably, the distributions of growers strongly dependent on the SCFM ("90-100 percent" group) and the distributions of growers less dependent on the SCFM ("less-than-90 percent" group) were similar with respect to the number of years they had been selling on the market, distance from farm to market, and the state in which the farm was located. One meaningful observation was that 8 percent of the "less-than-90 percent" group and none of the "90-100 percent" group traveled more than 100 miles from farm to market. The distribution of growers based on dependence on the SCFM differed significantly5 with respect to the frequency of selling trips to the market (Table 5). The less dependent growers made

5Statistical significance based on chi square statistic calculated from contingency tables.

Table 5. Relationship of growers' dependence on Shelby County Farmers' Market to selling patterns, Memphis, Tennessee, June-August, 1975

Percentage of total produce Income from sales In this market· Item Less than 90 percent 90·100 percent Number Percentb Number Percentb Month interviewed: June 26 39.4 28 34.6 July 33 50.0 46 56.8 August 7 10.6 7 8.6 Frequency of selling trips to market (chi. sq. = 6.73):· Daily 33 60.0 40 51.3 Weekly 13 23.6 33 42.3 Other 9 16.4 5 6.4 Selling time in market per trip: 12 hours or less 46 75.4 60 75.9 13-24 hours 8 13.1 12 15.2 25-48 hours 4 6.6 6 7.6 49 or more hours 3 4.9 1 1.3 Method used for determining price: Ask other growers the "going" price 38 60.3 46 59.7 Supply and demand conditions 19 30.2 20 26.0 Percent markup 5 7.9 7 9.1 Buyers set price 1 1.6 4 5.2

17 Table S-Contlnued

Percentllge of total produce Income from sales In this market' Item Less than 90 percent 90·100 percent Number Percentb Number Percentb Outlets for excess produce: Destroy it 24 36.4 34 42.5 Feed it to livestock at farm 12 18.2 17 21.3 Sell it to jobber-retailer 13 19.7 13 16.3 Sell it elsewhere 14 21.2 9 11.3 Give it away elsewhere 0 0.0 5 6.3 Stay until it Is sold 3 4.5 2 2.5

Sold produce through other Memphis outlets (chi sq. = 10.72):d Yes 18 27.3 5 6.2 No 48 72.7 76 93.8

Types of other Memphis produce outlets used: Retail grocers 11 64.7 3 75.0 Retail customers 3 17.6 0 0.0 Wholesaler 2 11.8 1 25.0 Truck jobber 1 5.9 0 0.0

Sold produce for other growers (chi sq. = 3.55):" Yes 9 13.6 3 3.7 No 57 86.4 78 96.3

Selling location in market: Front shed 37 56.1 45 55.6 Rear shed 29 43.9 36 44.4 Sales in open ever required: Yes 6 9.1 6 7.4 No 60 90.9 75 92.6

'Three growers did not respond to the question concerning the percentage of their produce income derived from sales in the SCFM. bPercentages are based on the number of growers responding to a particular question. ·Statistically significant at the 95 percent level. dStatistically significant at the 99 percent level. "Statistically significant at the 90 percent level.

18 more daily selling trips and more irregular selling trips than did the growers who were strongly dependent on the market. The distribution of growers who sold produce through other Memphis outlets and those who sold produce for other growers also differed significantly. However, the distributions of the two grower groups ("less-than-90 percent" and "90-100 percent") were similar with respect to selling time per trip, method used for determining price, outlets for excess produce, types of other Mem- phis produce outlets used, selling location in the market, and number of times required to sell in the open.

Although a few significant6 differences related to dependence on the SCFM were revealed, generally the dependence factor did not substantially affect selling patterns or total produce sales in the market.

Part-Time Versus Full-Time Farmers Growers who reported receiving 90 percent or more of their total annual income from farming were classified as full-time farmers. Based on this classification, 75 percent of the growers were full-time farmers and averaged $3,412 in produce sales in the SCFM in 1974 (Table 6). The part-time farmers averaged $1,751 in produce sales, about 50 percent of the full-time farmers' average. Even though the average total produce sales in the market for full-time farmers was twice that of part-time farmers, most growers in both groups reported sales of less than $5,000. How- ever, all growers in the sales categories of $10,000 to $20,000 or more were classified as full-time farmers. Sales expectations for 1975 as compared with sales in 1974 were similar for full-time and part-time farmers. The full-time farmers were slightly more optimistic than the part-time farmers. More than half of both groups received 90-100 percent of their total produce income from sales in the SCFM. Twice as many full-time farmers as part-time farmers obtained less than 25 percent of their total produce income from sales in this market.

6Statistical significance based on chi square statistic calculated from contingency tables.

19 Table 6. Relationship of part-time and full-time farming by growers using the Shelby County Farmers' Market to total produce sales in SCFM in 1974, percentage of total produce income from SCFM sales, and descriptive factors, Mem- phis, Tennessee, June-August, 1975

Part-time Full-time Item farmer. farmers Number of growers" 34 103 Percentage of growersb 24.8 75.2 Average value of produce sales in SCFM, 1974 season $1,750.96 $3,411.90 Number Percentb Number Percentb Total produce sales in SCFM during 1974 season: Less than $5,000 22 88.0 59 86.8 $ 5,000-$ 9,999 3 12.0 6 8.8 $10,000-$14,999 o 0.0 o 0.0 $15,000-$19,999 o 0.0 1 1.5 $20,000 or more o 0.0 2 2.9 Sales expectation for 1975: Greater than last year 14 41.2 47 45.6 Same as last year 14 41.2 38 - 36.9 Less than last year 6 17.6 18 17.5 Percentage of total produce income obtained from SCFM sales: Less than 25% 3 8.8 17 16.8 25- 49% 5 14.7 5 5.0 50- 74% 4 11.8 14 13.9 75- 89% 3 8.8 9 8.9 90-100% 19 55.9 56 55.4 Number of years selling in SCFM: First year 6 17.6 12 11.7 2- 5 years 8 23.5 34 33.0 6-10 years 7 20.6 21 20.4 11-20 years 3 8.8 17 16.5 21-30 years 10 29.4 19 18.4 Distance from farm to market: 50 miles or less 9 28.1 34 33.3 51- 75 miles 19 59.4 50 49.0 76-100 miles 4 12.5 13 12.7 101 or more miles o 0.0 5 4.9 Location of grower's farm: Tennessee 23 69.7 59 57.8 Arkansas 6 18.2 21 20.6 Mississippi 2 6.1 14 13.7 Missouri 2 6.1 8 7.8 "Thirteen growers did not respond to the question concerning whether they were full-time or part-time growers. bPercentages are based on the number of growers responding to a particular question. 20 A significant7 difference occurred with respect to the frequency of selling trips (Table 7). Full-time farmers were more concentrated in the daily visit category than were the part-time farmers. Nearly 20 percent of the part-time farmers visited the market on an irregular or infrequent basis.

7Statistical significance based on chi square statistic calculated from contingency tables.

Table 7. Relationship of part-time and full-time farming by growers using the Shelby County Farmers' Market to selling patterns, Memphis, Tennessee, June-August, 1975

Part-time Full·tlme Item farmers& farmers&

Number Percentb Number Percentb Month interviewed: June 19 55.9 32 31.1 July 14 41.2 58 56.3 August 1 2.9 13 12.6 Frequency of selling trips to market (chi. sq. 4.62):· Daily 12 38.7 54 58.7 Weekly 13 41.9 30 32.6 Other 6 19.4 8 8.7 Selling time in market per trip: 12 hours or less 25 78.1 73 73.7 13-24 hours 7 21.9 13 13.1 25-48 hours o 0.0 10 10.1 49 or more hours o 0.0 3 3.0 Method used for determining price: Ask growers the "going" price 21 61.8 58 58.6 Supply and demand conditions 8 23.5 29 29.3 Percent markup 3 8.8 9 9.1 Buyers set price 2 5.9 3 3.0 Disposal outlets for unsold produce: Destroy it 13 38.2 42 41.6 Feed it to livestock at farm 4 11.8 23 22.8 Sell it to jobber-retailer 1 2.9 4 4.0 Sell it elsewhere 6 17.6 13 12.9 Give it away elsewhere 1 2.9 4 4.0 Stay until it is sold 2 5.9 3 3.0 Sold produce through other Memphis outlets: Yes 2 5.9 18 17.5 No 32 94.1 85 82.5

21 Table 7 (continued)

Part-time Full-time Item farmers' farmers'

Number Percentb Number Percentb Types of other Memphis produce outlets used: Retail grocers 1 50.0 13 76.5 Retail customers o 0.0 2 11.8 Wholesaler 1 50.0 2 11.8 Truck jobbers o 0.0 o 0.0 Sold produce for other growers: Yes 5 14.7 6 5.8 No 29 85.3 97 94.2 Selling location in market: Front shed 21 61.8 53 51.5 Rear shed 13 38.2 50 48.5 Sales in open ever required: Yes 1 2.9 11 10.7 No 33 97.1 92 89.3 "Thirteen growers did not respond to the question concerning whether they were full-time or part-time growers. bPercentages are based on the number of growers responding to a particular question. ·Statistically significant at the 90 percent level.

DATA COLLECTED FROM CUSTOMERS AND OTHER SHOPPERS During the same 3 weeks in which the growers were interviewed, 200 shoppers in the SCFM, selected at random, were interviewed. 8 Information was obtained on socioeconomic factors and purchasing patterns, and relationships between socioeconomic factors and purchasing patterns were identified.

Socioeconomic Factors Most shoppers, 55 percent, were in the 40- to 59-year age group (Table 8). The second largest age group, 35 percent, was the 20- to 39-year age group. Only 10 percent of the interviewed shoppers were 60 years of age or older group. Noticeably absent were any shoppers in the under 20 age group.

8Wholesale customers who purchased for resale were not interviewed.

22 Table 8. Socio-economlc factors for 200 shoppers, Shelby County Farmers' Market, Memphis, Tennessee, June-August 1975

Number Percentage Item of shoppers of shoppersa Age of shopper: Under 20 0 0.0 20-39 67 34.7 40-59 106 54.9 60 and over 20 10.4 No response 7 Totals 200 100.0 Annual family income: Less than· $5,000 9 4.6 $ 5,000-$ 9,999 47 23.9 $10,000-$14,999 52 26.4 $15,000 and over 89 45.2 No response 3 Totals 200 100.1b Sex of shopper: Single female '5 2.5 Single male 9 4.6 Family group 65 33.0 Male-female couple 85 43.1 Couple of same sex 33 16.8 N'o response 3 Totals 200 100.0 Location of shopper's residence: Shelby County, Tennessee 183 91.5 Tennessee (excluding Shelby Co,) 11 5.5 Mississippi 3 1.5 Arkansas 2 1.0 Kentucky 1 0.5 Totals 200 100.0 Distance from residence to market: Less than 5 miles 56 29.9 5- 9.9 miles 56 29.9 10-14.9 miles 44 23.5 15-19.9 miles 11 5.9 20 miles or more 20 10.7 No response 13 Totals 200 99.9b

apercentages are based on the number of shoppers responding to a particular question. !>Doesnot equal 100 due to rounding of decimal values.

23 Annual family income for 45 percent of the shoppers was reported to be $15,000 or greater.9 The $10,000 to $14,999 income group contained 26 percent of the responding shoppers and was closely followed by the $5,000 to $9,999 income group with 24 percent. The lowest annual family income category of under $5,000 contained less than 5 percent of the shoppers. Clearly, upper income shoppers were utilizing the SCFM, and the market was not predominantly patronized by lower income families. Most of the shoppers interviewed, 43 percent, were shopping with a member of the opposite sex. Family groups were next in importance with 33 percent of the shoppers. Somewhat surprising was the small number of unaccompanied female shoppers (2.5 percent). Their small number may indicate their concern regarding the location and environment of the market. Most of the shoppers, 92 percent, were residents of Shelby County, Tennessee. However, 6 percent of the shoppers were residents of other Tennessee counties, and a combined total of 3 percent were residents of Mississippi, Arkansas, and Kentucky. Most of the shoppers interviewed on the SCFM (60 percent) were less than 10 miles from home. Of those shoppers, one-half lived less than 5 miles from the market. Nearly a fourth of the shoppers lived between 10 and 14.9 miles from the market (Table 8). A few shoppers (6 percent) had residences that were 15 to 19.9 miles away from the market, and 11 percent lived 20 or more miles from the market.

Purchasing Patterns Twenty-four kinds of fruits and vegetables were purchased by the 200 shoppers included in the survey (Table 9). The shoppers' lists of purchased produce items contained six fruits and vegetables that were not produced and sold by any of the 150 surveyed growers. Those six items, and many of the other items, were sold to customers by small independent jobber-retailers. The jobber-retailers purchase many items from growers in bulk con- tainers at wholesale prices and resell them in smaller retail units.

9Median family income in Memphis (1975) was estimated to be $12,692, which was calculated by multiplying the 1969 Bureau of Census value of $8,646 by the consumer Price Index of 146.8 from the Depart- ment of Labor.

24 Table 9. Products purchased by 187 of 200 shoppers interviewed, Shelby County Farmers' Market, Memphis, Tennessee, June-August, 1975

Number of Percentage of Item customers customers· Apples 5 2.7 Bananas 1 0.5 Butterbeans 22 11.8 Cabbage 1 0.5 Cantaloupes 23 12.3 Cucumbers 15 8.0 Eggplant 2 1.1 Flowers, cut 2 1.1 Grapes 1 0.5 Honeydew melons 1 0.5 Lettuce 1 0.5 Molasses 2 1.1 Okra 25 13.4 Onions 8 4.3 Peaches 57 30.5 Peas, southern 62 33.2 Peppers, all types 19 10.2 Plums 9 4.8 Potatoes 7 3.8 Potted Plants 1 0.5 Pumpkins 1 0.5 Snap beans 35 18.7 Squash, yellow 16 8.6 Sweet corn 55 29.4 Tomatoes 72 38.5 Turnip greens 3 1.6 Watermelons 56 30.0

'Percentages are based on the 187 customers who made a purchase on the day they were interviewed.

They also bought supplies from other local wholesalers to be able to display a larger variety of items than just those grown and sold by "local" growers. The produce item purchased most often was tomatoes, which was purchased by 38 percent of the surveyed customers who made a purchase on the market (Table 10). Next, in order of sales, were southern peas, peaches, watermelons, and sweet corn. Five other produce items were also purchased by more than 10 percent of the customers.

25 Table 10. Purchasing or shopping patterns of 200 shoppers Inter- viewed, Shelby County Farmers' Market, Memphis, Ten- nessee, June-August, 1975

Number of Percentage of customers customers or Item or shoppers shoppers' Products purchased: Tomatoes 72 38.5 Peas, southern 62 33.2 Peaches 57 30.5 Watermelons 56 30.0 Sweet corn 55 29.4 Snap beans 35 18.7 Okra 25 13.4 Cantaloupes 23 12.3 Butterbeans 22 11.8 Peppers, all types 19 10.2 Squash, yellow 16 8.6 Cucumbers 15 8.0 Othersb 45 24.1 Number of products purchased: One product 32 17.1 Two products 54 28.8 Three products 52 27.8 Four products 32 17.1 Five or more products 17 9.1 Totals 187· Total cost of purchases: Less than $5.00 21 11.9 $ 5.00-$ 9.99 60 34.1 $10.00-$14.99 51 29.0 $15.00-$19.99 25 14.2 $20.00-$49.99 19 10.8 No response 11 Totals 187· 100.0 Frequency of shopping trips to market: Daily 6 4.2 Weekly 57 39.6 Biweekly 12 8.3 Monthly or less frequently 69 47.9 No response 56 Totals 200 100.0 First trip to market: Yes 21 10.5 No 179 89.5 Totals 200 100.0

26 Table 10 (continued)

Number of Percentage of customers customers or Item or shoppers shoppers' Shopper's source of produce when market is closed: Full-line grocery stores 50 46.7 Specialty produce stores 43 40.2 Do not buy fresh 11 10.3 Other sources 3 2.8 No response 93 Totals 200 100.0 Reason for shopping at market: Prices 36 18.8 Quality 62 32.5 Volume 51 26.7 Recreational outing 19 9.9 Convenient location 10 5.2 Other 13 6.8 No response 9 Totals 200 'Percentages are based on the number of shoppers or customers responding to a particular question. bOther products purchased included: Plums, honeydews, lettuce, potatoes, apples, eggplant, bananas, cabbage, grapes, squash, pumpkins, turnip greens, potted plants, flowers, and molasses. ·Percentages for products purchased, number of products purchased, and total cost of purchase are based on 187 purchasers of produce of the 200 shoppers interviewed. Other percentages are based on the full number of 200 shoppers interviewed. . dDoes not equal 100 due to rounding of decimal values.

Few customers, 9 percent, bought five or more products. Most of the customers purchased two or three products. Customers evi- dently use the market for obtaining specialty items. Slightly more than a third of the customers buying on the day they were interviewed spent $5.00 to $10.00. Twenty-nine percent of the customers spent $10.00 to $15.00 on produce items. The number of customers who spent $20.00 or more was almost as large as the number who spent less than $5.00. The largest single customer purchase was reported to be $35.00. Another important factor considered was the frequency of shoppers' trips to the SeFM. As expected, very few shoppers

27 visited the market daily. Nearly half of the shoppers, 48 percent, visited the market on a monthly basis, or even less frequently. However, 40 percent of the shoppers visited the market on a weekly basis. Because the SCFM operates on a seasonal basis, another factor of concern with respect to the purchasing patterns of market shoppers was the shoppers' source of produce during the off season. Somewhat surprisingly, 10 percent said they did not buy fresh produce when it was not available at the SCFM. Most shoppers, 87 percent, reported that they bought fresh produce from full-line grocery stores or specialty produce stores during the off season. Prices, quality, and volume were the predominant reasons given by shoppers for shopping in the SCFM. Of these reasons, quality was noted by the largest percentage (33 percent) of the shoppers. Almost 10 percent of the shoppers interviewed considered their trip to the market to be a recreational-type outing in addition to a shopping trip. Thus, the number of family groups reported earlier was at least partly explained. A few of those interviewed said they shopped at the market because they enjoyed buying food direct from the farmer, or they thought they were helping the farmer by their direct purchase of produce.

Average Total Cost of Produce Purchased The average total cost per customer of the produce bought on the SCFM was $10.49 (Table 11), excluding those customers who did not respond to this question and shoppers who did not buy produce. Customers who reported that volume available was an important reason for shopping at the market spent more money, averaging $11.98, than did customers specifying other reasons. The lowest "average total cost of purchases" was by the customers who said they shopped at the market because it was a convenient location. Neither the age of customers nor the level of annual family income had a consistent effect on the average total cost of produce purchased (Table 12). Average total cost of produce purchased varied from $9.31 for the families with less than $5,000 annual income to $10.98 for the families with incomes of $15,000 or more. The average total cost of produce bought by customers in the 40-59 year age group was higher than that of produce bought by the other two age groups.

28 Table 11. Relationship of cost of produce purchased and distance traveled to purchasing patterns of 187 customers, Shelby County Farmers' Market, Memphis, Tennessee, June- August, 1975

Average total Average distance cost of from residence Item produce purchased" to market" Dollars Miles Total 10.49 10.3 Total cost of purchases: Less than $5.00 2.69 10.4b $ 5.00-$ 9.99 6.75 7.8b $10.00-$14.99 10.78 7.6b $15.0(}-$19.99 15.66 14.1b $20.00-$49.99 23.32 24.1b Frequency of customer trips to market: Daily 14.75 11.3 Weekly 9.88 7.8 Biweekly 11.60 8.5 Monthly or less 11.53 10.8 First trip to market: Yes 10.49 15.0 Customers' source of produce when market closed: Full line grocery store 11.26 10.5" SpeciaOlty produce store 10.15 6.1" Do not buy fresh 9.36 10.2" Other sources 8.00 30.7" Reason for shopping at market: Prices 9.96 12.5 auality 10.27 10.6 Volume available 11.98 8.2 Recreational outing 10.25 15.2 Convenient location 9.14 4.1 Other 9.77 7.7

"Averages for total cost of purchase and distance are based on 187 purchasers of produce of the 200 shoppers interviewed. bStatistically significant at the 99 percent level with an F ratio of 4.30. ·Statistically significant at the 95 percent level with an F ratio of 3.17.

29 Table 12. Relationship of cost of produce purchased and distance traveled to socio-economic factors for 187 customers, Shelby County Farmers' Market, Memphis, Tennessee, June-August, 1975

Average total Average distance cost of from residence Item produce purchased' to market' Dollars Miles Age of customer: 20-39 years 9.92 10.1 40-59 years 11.28 10.4 60 years and over 10.18 13.5 Annual family income: Less than $5,000 9.31 5.8 $ 5,000-$ 9,999 10.24 10.6 $10,000-$14,999 9.98 8.6 $15,000 and over 10.98 11.5 Sex of customer: Single female 9.20 4.0 Single male 6.72 5.6 Family group 11.23 13.7 Male-female couple 10.31 8.9 Couple of same sex 11.22 9.2 Location of customer residence: Shelby County, Tennessee 9.97b 7.7 Tennessee (excluding Shelby Co.) 14.67b 20.4 Mississippi 16.00b 62.5 Arkansas 15.50b 35.0 Kentucky 30.00b 140.0 Distance from residence to market: Less than 5 miles 9.11- 2.5 5- 9.9 miles 9.6S- 6.2 10-14.9 miles 10.62- 11.0 15-19.9 miles 9.88- 15.3 20 miles or more 15.13- 39.4

'Averages for total cost of purchase and distance are based on 187 purchasers of produce of the 200 shoppers interviewed. bStatistically significant at the 99 percent level with an F ratio of 5.35. -Statistically significant at the 99 percent level with an F ratio of 3.73. 30 The average total cost of produce purchased was lower for Shelby County residents than for other Tennessee residents and out-of-state customers. The differences in these average purchases was significantl° and may reflect the larger purchases that might be made by some of those who travel longer distances and shop less often. This hypothesis was supported by the significant varia- tion in purchases associated with distance from residence to market. The average total cost of produce purchased by customers shopping with another person or with family members was higher than that of produce purchased by either single male or female shoppers. The average total cost of produce purchased by single males was $6.72, which was the lowest value for any of the five customer categories examined. Neither the month nor the day of the week in which the customer was shopping had a significant effect upon the average total cost of produce purchased. The average total cost was lower on Wednesday and Thursday and higher on all the other days of the week (Table 13). Saturday and Sunday were the best days of the week in average total cost of produce purchased, $11.77 and $10.74, respectively. Customers' purchases were significantlylo affected by the time the customers patronized the SCFM. The two time periods during which the average total cost of produce purchased was highest was from 3 to 4 p.m. and 8 to 9 p.m. These two times of highest purchase may reflect the desire of growers to "sell-out" so they can return home. By midafternoon, some growers may lower prices to entice customers to increase purchases so they can "sell- out" and return home before dinner. By 8 p.m., some of the remaining growers may lower prices to increase sales so they may return home that evening with an empty truck, or at least to have made enough sales to pay for the trip.

Average Distance Between Residence and Market The average distance between customers' residence and the market was 10.3 miles (Table 11). A 10-mile radius extending from the market encompasses all of the residential areas in Shelby

lOStatistical significance based on F ratio statistic calculated from one-way analysis of variance.

31 County that have a population density of 15 or more persons per acre. [1] The average distance traveled from residence to market differed significantly when categorized by the total cost of produce purchased. Except for the customers who purchased less than $10.00 in produce, the average total cost of produce purchased increased as the average distance between residence and market increased. Surprisingly, the customers who visited the market on a daily basis during the summer season averaged 11.3 miles between residence and market. This distance was greater than that traveled by customers who visited the market on a weekly, bimonthly, or monthly basis. The shortest distance was traveled by the weekly customers, who averaged 7.8 miles; Family groups, one of the five customer classifications under the title "sex of customer" (Table 12), averaged traveling a con- siderably longer distance between residence and market (13.7 miles) than those in the other four customer classifications. Single females averaged the shortest distance (4.0 miles). Month the customers were interviewed and time of day they were shopping did not have a significant relationship with the distance traveled, yet the day of the week did have a significantll relationship (Table 13). On Mondays and Fridays, the average distances traveled between residence and market were 7.2 and 7.9 miles, respectively. In contrast, on Saturdays, the average. distance traveled was 25.3 miles.

Frequency of Shopping at SCFM All shoppers were asked whether they shopped at the SCFM regularly or occasionally. Three-fourths said they shopped there regularly and one-fourth said they shopped there occasionally. The latter included "first-time" as well as "repeat" shoppers. The average distance traveled between the regular shopper's residence and the market was less than half that traveled by the

llstatistical significance based on F ratio statistic calculated from one-way analysis of variance.

32 Table 13. Relationship of distance traveled and produce purchased to time, day, and month in which 200 people were shopping in Shelby County Farmers' Market, Mem- pfiis, Tennessee, June-August, 1975

Average total Number cost of Average distance of produce from residence Item shoppers purchased" to market' Dollars Miles Month interviewed: June 88 10.50 11.5 July 63 10.18 10.7 August 49 10.88 7.6 Day of week interviewed: Sunday 37 10.74 10.8" Monday 20 10.63 7.2" Tuesday 27 11.10 8.3" Wednesday 26 9.61 8.8" Thursday 18 9.47 9.9" Friday 54 10.30 7.9" Saturday 18 11.77 25.3" Time of day interviewed: 1-2 p.m. 17 9.88b 17.1 2-3 p.m. 13 10.58b 9.2 3-4 p.m. 9 16.42b 10.2 4-5 p.m. 15 7.37b 12.8 5-6 p.m. 15 9.29b 18.9 6-7 p.m. 18 9.88b 6.9 7-8 p.m. 63 10.08b 8.3 8-9 p.m. 50 12.07b 8.8 "Averages for total cost of purchase and distance are based on 187 purchasers of produce of the 200 shoppers interviewed. bStatistically significant at the 90 percent level, with an F ratio of 2.04. "Statistically significant at the 99 percent level, with an F ratio of 3.34. occasional shopper (Table 14). The distance traveled by regular and occasional shoppers differed significantly.12 The percentage of regular and occasional shoppers in each of the subgroupings of age, income, and sex was approximately equal. The distribution of regular and occasional shoppers for the five purchase-cost categories differed significantly12 (Table 15). A

12Statistical significance based on chi square statistic calculated from contingency tables.

33 Table 14. Relationship of frequency of shopping at the Shelby County Farmers' Market to selected socio-economic factors for 195 shoppers, Memphis, Tennessee, June- August, 1975

Frequency of shopping Item Regularly Occasionally Number of shoppers" 147 48 Percentage of shoppersb 75.4 24.6 Average distance of residence from market (miles) 8.0 16.9

Number Percentb Number Percentb Distance from residence to market (chi. sq. = 8.60):" Less than 5 miles 46 32.9 10 23.3 5- 9.9 miles 47 33.6 8 18.6 10-14.9 miles 28 20.0 14 32.6 15-19.9 miles 7 5.0 4 9.3 20 miles or more 12 8.6 7 16.3 Location of shopper's residence: Shelby County, Tennessee 139 94.6 40 83.3 Tennessee (excluding Shelby Co.) 6 4.1 5 10.4 Mississippi 2 1.4 0 0.0 Arkansas 0 0.0 2 4.2 Kentucky 0 0.0 1 2.1 Age of shopper: 20-39 years 45 31.9 21 44.7 40-59 years 82 58.2 21 44.7 60 years and over 14 9.9 5 10.6 Annual family income: Less than $5,000 6 4.2 2 4.2 $ 5,000-$ 9,999 34 23.6 13 27:1 $10,000-$14,999 38 26.4 12 25.0 $15,000 or more 66 45.8 21 43.8 Sex of shopper: Single female 4 2.8 1 2.1 Single male 7 4.8 2 4.3 Family group 46 31.7 16 34.0 Male-female couple 61 42.1 22 46.8 Couple of same sex 27 18.6 6 12.8

"Five shoppers did not respond to the question concerning whether they shopped at the market regularly or occasionally. bPercentages are based on number of shoppers who responded to a particular question. "Statistically significant at the 90 percent level.

34 Table 15. Relationship of frequency of shopping at the Shelby County Farmers' Market to purchasing or shopping patterns of 195 shoppers, Memphis, Tennessee, June- August, ~975

Frequency of shopping Item Regularly Occasionally Number of shoppers' 147 48 Percentage of shoppersb 75.4 24.6 Average total purchase $10.75 $9.41 Number Percentb Number Percentb Total cost of purchase (chi sq. = 12.80):· Less than $5.00 10 7.6 11 27.5 $ 5.00-$ 9.99 47 35.6 12 30.0 $10.00-$14.99 41 31.1 9 22.5 $15.00-$19.99 21 15.9 3 7.5 $20.00-$49.99 13 9.8 5 12.5 Shopper's source of produce when market is closed: Full-line grocery stores 42 45.2 8 61.5 Specialty produce stores 40 43.0 2 15.4 Do not buy· fresh 10 10.8 1 7.7 Other sources 1 1.1 2 15.4

Month interview conducted (chi-sq. = 22.91):d June 50 34.0 35 72.9 July 52 35.4 9 18.8 August 45 30.6 4 8.3

Reason for shopping at market: Prices 26 18.3 10 22.2 Quality 43 30.3 16 35.6 Quantity 42 29.6 8 17.8 Recreational outing 12 8.5 7 15.6 Convenient location 10 7.0 o 0.0 Other 9 6.3 4 8.9

Day of week: Sunday 26 17.7 10 20.8 Monday 17 11.6 3 6.3 Tuesday 22 15.0 4 8.3 Wednesday 19 12.9 6 12.5 Thursday 15 10.2 3 6.3 Friday 38 25.9 14 29.2 Saturday 10 6.8 8 16.7

35 Table 15 (continued)

______F_~equ~ncyof sho~pl~g _ Item Regularly Occasionally

Number Percentb Number Percentb Time of day: 1-2 p.m. 11 7.5 6 12.5 2-3 p.m. 8 5.4 5 10.4 3·4 p.m. 5 3.4 4 8.3 4-5 p.m. 9 6.1 6 12.5 5-6 p.m. 9 6.1 5 10.4 6-7 p.m. 16 10.9 1 2.1 7-8 p.m. 46 31.3 14 29.2 8-9 p.m. 43 29.3 7 14.7

"Five shoppers did not respond to the question as to whether they were regular or occasional shoppers at the SGFM. bPercentages are based on number of shoppers who responded to a particular question. ·Statistically significant at the 95 percent level. ·Statistically significant at the 99 percent level.

much larger percentage of the occasional shoppers (28 percent) than of the regular shoppers (8 percent) bought less than $5.00 worth of produce the day interviewed. Most of the occasional shoppers visited the market during the first month of the season, 73 percent in June. The distribution of regular shoppers among the 3 months of the summer season was quite uniform. Since most of the occasional shoppers in June were making a "first-trip" to the SCFM, advertising and promo- tion of the market throughout the season might attract a few more "new" shoppers. The largest percentage of occasional shoppers, 36 percent, were attracted to the market in search of quality produce. None of the occasional shoppers reported that they were shopping at the market because of its convenient location, and only 7 percent of the regular shoppers were there because of location. As with the occasional shoppers, the largest percentage of regular shoppers (30 percent) were looking for quality produce. The distribution of occasional shoppers throughout the after- noon and early evenings was fairly uniform. The smallest percentage of occasional shoppers interviewed (2 percent) were shop-

36 ing between 6 and 7 p.m., just before the largest percentage interviewed (29 percent) between 7 and 8 p.m. The largest percentage of regular customers interviewed (72 percent) were shopping throughout the evening hours from 6 to 9 p.m.

CONCLUDING REMARKS THE VOLUME of produce sold directly to customers through a farmers' market outlet is small when compared with the total volume of produce sales. One basic restraint to such direct sales is the limited time period during which locally grown produce is available. Yet the sales activity in a farmers' market can still be of considerable importance to participating consumers and growers. For many of the growers surveyed, the produce sales through this farmers' market were vitally important. Fifty-five percent of the growers indicated that 90-100 percent of total annual produce sales were made on this market. Another 22 percent reported that they depended on the SCFM for selling 50-89 percent of the produce they sold. Thus, the SCFM is utilized as an important sales outlet by these growers. The volume of produce available for sale in the market could be expanded if the demand were evident. Previous studies have shown that the many farmers with small acreages in the Memphis Trade Area have the resources to provide a fairly substantial volume of produce. [4] The studies also revealed that those farmers would be interested in growing or in expanding their vegetable production if they had a sales outlet. The demand for fresh produce at a farmers' market is an important factor for consideration. Information obtained from the customers interviewed provided insight into opportunities for expanding consumer participation in direct purchase of fresh produce from growers. Notably, the SCFM customers were not as price conscious as they were quality conscious. Also, 72 percent of the customers had annual family incomes of $10,000 or more. And, the small number of unaccompanied female shoppers indicated a possible concern regarding location and environment of the market. Therefore, there may be potential for increasing the number of participating customers through advertising (market awareness), and improved market access and environment.

37 Consumer participation in buying fresh produce from farmers' markets may be effectively increased at this time due to their increasing concern about good nutrition and to their interest in bypassing traditional marketing channels as a means of stretching their food dollars. The extent to which these trends will affect consumer buying habits and the longevity of these trends cannot be determined at this time. The potential for sales of produce directly to consumers through farmers' markets in other areas of the state and country appears to depend upon two primary factors, as follows: 1. A sizable number of growers with small acreages of fruits or vegetables is necessary for the provi~ion of an adequate supply base. As revealed by the growers interviewed in the SCFM, most of them had other sources of income besides farming and their farming situation allowed them the time required for direct marketing. Direct-to-consumer sales will probably be less desirable for farmers with large operations that restrict the time available for lengthy sales activities than it will be for those with small operations. 2. The second required factor is an adequate population in the area of the farmers' market so a reservoir of customers will be available. Based on the evidence available, the establishment of guidelines as to the minimum size population that can support a direct-to-consumer farmers market does not seem realistic. Basic economic theory requires that the demand and supply curves intersect at a satisfactory level if both producers and consumers are to participate; but, it does not specify the minimum exchange level. A minimum exchange level is determined by cost considerations of the individual growers and the cost of operating the farmers' market facility.

LIST OF REFERENCES 1. Bureau of Business and Economic Research, Memphis State Uni- versity. The Economic Base of the Mississippi-Arkansas-Tennessee Council of Governments/Memphis Delta Development District Area. Mississippi-Arkansas-Tennessee Council of Governments, Memphis, Tennessee, July, 1974. 2. Federal Trade Commission. Organization and Competition in Food Retailing. Technical Study No.7, National Commission on Food Marketing, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., June, 1966.

38 3. George, P. S. and G. A. King. Consumer Demand for Food Com- modities in the United states with Projections for 1980. Giannini Foundation Monograph Number 26. California Ag. Exp. Sta., Uni- versity of California, Davis, California, March, 1971. 4. Goble, William E. The Knoxville Wholesale and Retail Produce Markets. Bulletin 509, Agric. Expt. Sta., University of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, May, 1973. 5. H.R. 10339. "Farmer-To-Consumer Direct Marketing Act of 1976." Report No. 94-1022, Calendar No. 965, 94th Congress, 2nd Session. Legislative Day, June 18, 1976. 6. Steorts, Nancy H. "The Impact· of the Consumer." Office of the Secretary, U.S. Department of Agriculture, No. 2571-76, U.S. Gov- ernment Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1976. 7. Taylor, Earl G., John R. Brooker, et. al. Food Distribution Facilities for Memphis, Tennessee. Marketing Research Report, AMRI, ARS, U.S. Department of Agriculture, in process. 8. The Packer. "California Farmers Try Direct Market Program," The Packer. The Vance Publishing Corp., Kansas City, Kansas, July, 1976. 9. Toothman, James S. "Changes in Consumer Food Buying," Farm Economics. Cooperative Extension Service, Agricultural Economics Extension, Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Penn- sylvania, October, 1975. 10. U.S. Department of Agriculture. Agricultural Outlook. Economic Research Service, AO-14, U.S. Government Printing Office, Wash- ington, D. C., Sept., 1976. 11. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1969 Census of Agriculture. Part 34. Arkansas Section 2. County Data. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1972. 12. U.S. Department 'of Commerce. 1969 Census of Agriculture. Part 30. Kentucky Section 2. County Data. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1972. 13. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1969 Census of Agriculture. Part 17. Missouri Section 2. County Data. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1972. 14. U.S. Department of Commerce, 1969 Census of Agriculture. Part 33. Mississippi Section 2. County Data. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1972. 15. U.S. Department of Commerce. 1969 Census of Agriculture. Part 3l. Tennessee Section 2. County Data. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D. C., 1972. 16. Walden, Dwain. "New Marketing Concept Seeks Federal Support," Southeast Farm Press. Southeast Farm Press, Inc., Clarksdale, Mississippi, July 7, 1976. 17. Wilson, Charles M. and Joe A. Martin. The Agribusiness Industry in the Memphis Trade Area. Bulletin No. 465. Agric. Expt. Sta., Uni- versity of Tennessee, Knoxville, Tennessee, Dec., 1969.

39 THE UNIVERSITY OF TENNESSEE AGRICULTURAL EXPERIMENT STATION KNOXVILLE, TENNESSEE 37901

Agricultural Committee Board of Trustees Edward J. Boling, President of the University; Clyde M. York, Chairman; Ben Douglas, Vice Chairman; Wayne Fisher, Harry W. Laughlin, Don O. Shadow; Edward S. Porter, Commissioner of Agriculture; Webster Pendergrass, Vice President for Agriculture STATION OFFICERS Admlnlstratlol:l Edward J. Boling, President Webster Pendergrass, Vice President for Agriculture E. J. Chapman, Assistant Vice President D. M. Gossett, Dean T. J. Whatley, Associate Dean J. I. Sewell, Assistant Dean O. Clinton Shelby, Director of Business Affairs G. W.. F. Cavender, Director, Office of Communications Department He.ds C. J. Southards, Agricultural Biology Food Science, Nutrition, and Food J. A. Martin, Agricultural Economics Systems Administration and Rural Sociology J. T. Miles, Food Technology and Science D. H. Luttrell, Agricultural Engineering J. W. Barrett, Forestry R. R. Johnson, Animal Science D. B. Williams, Ornamental Horticulture Judith L. Kuipers, Child and Family and Landscape Design Studies L. F. Seatz, Plant and Soil Science Anna J. Treece, Textiles and Clothing AgriCUltural Research Units Main Station, Knoxville, John Hodges III, Superintendent of Farms University of Tennessee Comparative Animal Research Laboratory, Oak Ridge, H. E. Walburg, Laboratory Director The University of Tennessee at Martin, Martin, Harold J. Smith, Dean, School of Agriculture Branch Stations Dairy Experiment Station, Lewisburg, J. R. Owen, Superintendent Highland Rim Experiment Station, Springfield, L. M. Safley, Superintendent '-i Middle Tennessee Experiment Station, Spring Hill, J.,.. .~;-c:Jl' ~tendent ~.~ ;; Plateau Experiment Station, Crossville, R. D. Freeland,' Su~' dent·" ."l., ,,!'. . (. Tobacco Experiment Station, Greeneville, Donald D. Howi"rd, 'Superinten'dc!nt ""'00 ; •. West Tennessee Experiment Station, Jackson, H. W. I..pck, Sup.ettn.~ndent • ft Field Stations .~: ,V \ (1;:;t Ames Plantation, Grand Junction, James M. Bryan, SuperiI(tende~f,.. ·.•.•,c,.'''ft Forestry Field Stations at Tullahoma, Wartburg, and Oak Riqge, ,~ard M..~ ,'" ,"-t' Evans, Superintend,ent .,~ 0-- .. Milan Field Station, Milan, T. C. McCutchen, Superintendent

(1.8M/9-77)